'Dangerously Naive' Aaron Swartz 'Destroyed Himself'

theodp writes "In July, MIT drew criticism after issuing a report clearing itself in the suicide of Aaron Swartz. So, one wonders what Swartz supporters will make of The Lessons of Aaron Swartz, an MIT Technology Review op-edish piece penned by MIT EE/CS prof Hal Abelson, who chaired the review panel. Calling Swartz 'dangerously naïve about the reality of exercising that power [of technology], to the extent that he destroyed himself' (others say prosecutorial overreach destroyed him), Abelson questions 'whether the people who mentored Swartz and helped him achieve such brilliance and power had a responsibility to cultivate not only his technical excellence and his passion as an advocate but also, as my grandmother would have called it, seykhel-a wonderful Yiddish word that means a combination of intelligence and common sense.'"

Comments

You're ignoring the real issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've completely ignored the real issue, which was Swartz choosing to voluntarily end his own life. The prosecution he was facing due to other, previous actions is completely irrelevant. It in no way "forced" him to commit suicide, regardless of how much some Generation Y members would like to mistakenly claim that it did.

In any case of suicide, there's only one person who is ultimately responsible: the person who has killed himself or herself. Society is not responsible. Members of the judicial system are not responsible. An academic institution that was dragged into legal proceedings by the actions of an unaffiliated party is not responsible.

It becomes a generational issue because people of earlier generations generally have a good understanding of responsibility, and who is truly responsible for what happened in this unfortunate situation. They know that when somebody does something voluntary to himself or herself, that any harm that arises is the responsibility of that person, and that person alone.

So many members of Generation Y, on the other hand, feel it necessary to (incorrectly, of course) blame just about everybody except the party who directly and voluntarily performed the harmful action. This proves that they just don't understand the concept of responsibility. It's really that simple, I'm afraid to say. They just don't understand it.